In just under a week, Iraq will hold its long-awaited election. The conditions under which citizens will vote have caused many people to question the wisdom behind going through with the election.

Such apprehension is understandable, but concluding that President Bush is simply incompetent overlooks the obvious: the administration doesn’t actually want a successful, legitimate election in Iraq.

Gen. Thomas Metz, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, recently stated that four of Iraq’s 18 provinces “remain too unsafe for many to vote.” These four provinces contain the cities of Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul and Tikrit and are home to almost 40 percent of the population. Incidentally, these provinces, with the exception of Mosul, fall in the so-called Sunni triangle.

In other words, the Sunnis are going to get pounded at the polls and will come away with little to show for their citizenship. The ensuing political instability will create the “need” for the U.S. occupation to continue and thus allow Washington to continue controlling the underlying economic and political situation.

Bush isn’t as dumb as he pretends to be. Behind that “Aww shucks” demeanor is the same politician who sold the war on lies. Most of our allies were humiliated into opposing or giving only minimal support for the invasion, thereby giving the United States almost complete control over the reconstruction projects, natural resources and political policy.

With much to be gained in Iraq — which has the second-largest oil reserves in the world — the occupation will continue under the guise of “fixing the insecurity” produced by the administration’s own policies. The largest U.S. embassy in the world is in Iraq, indicating that the Bush administration never intended to leave as soon as possible. No, the administration has long-term plans there, which serve three related but distinct functions.

First, Iraq’s natural resources will be secured — physically and politically — for U.S. business interests. In a global economy that runs on oil, this represents “good times” for corporate America.

Second, a long-term military deployment will serve to intimidate neighbors into meeting Washington’s demands — or else. Recognizing this is not a sign of support for any of the autocratic regimes in the area, but of opposition to an agenda centered around furthering political and economic hegemony.

Last, the continued military deployment will allow the Bush administration to easily attack neighboring country Iran, for which the neocons are already licking their chops.

When people wonder why Bush would want to go through with an election plan that is destined to fail, they are asking a good question. However, given the level of inadequacy in this specific plan, one must conclude that Bush isn’t sharing his real agenda, and thus “failure” for him means something else entirely.

This should come as no surprise, though. The war was originally sold on lies and waged for oil. There is no reason to believe that the administration’s motives have suddenly become altruistic. An old proverb warns to “never assume malice before incompetence,” but there comes a point at which malice must be acknowledged. In this case, it comes in the form of systematic deception, war crimes and indifference to the citizens and soldiers who are directly involved.

From day one, every military and political decision has strengthened the case for an exclusive, long-term U.S. presence in Iraq.

The coming election is just one more chapter in this long book of military occupation and should be viewed as nothing else.